Was this the OT only? I know psychologists and psychiatrists of today like to bring up hereditary traits to explain behavior, but what does the Bible say about this?

generational sin in not in the bible
generational consequence is
visiting iniquity does not mean hereditary, it means judgment
it is the law for Israel not Gentiles

If I am not mistaken it seems Adam's sin is passed down to his posterity.

you are mistaken
the condemnation (judgment -Gen 5, Rom 5 and 8) passed to all men, not the sin

you are mistaken
the condemnation (judgment -Gen 5, Rom 5 and 8) passed to all men, not the sin

So we are not born with a sin nature? Just born condemned?

That's all it says.

Why does there have to be a sin nature? Adam and Eve didn't need a sin nature to sin. Must we in lesser circumstances and a weaker environment?

Yes, because of one mans sin all were condemned to the physical death in Genesis 3. There's is no spiritual death there. According to Romans 1 man is born holding truth, knowing God, having required knowledge, and is without excuse, but he rejects the knowledge of God and is therefore turned over and his heart is darkened. That is, because of mans rejection of truth and God his heart is darkened from a lighter state. Now, that's what it says, regardless of what mans theology teaches. Jesus said the spirit is willing. Mary said her spirit rejoiced in the Lord her God. There's only about one hundred+ functioning spirit passages pre-cross that I could quote.

all i know is that plain evidence shows that many times certain sins are perpetuated from generation to generation. just looking at the world, it can be seen that women and men often have the same temptations and struggles of their parents

i also think that the verse that says through one mans transgression the many were made sinners means that we all sinned in Adam. im aware some think it simply mean we are charged with adams sin but not actually given a sin nature and thats fine we can agree to disagree for now

all i know is that plain evidence shows that many times certain sins are perpetuated from generation to generation. just looking at the world, it can be seen that women and men often have the same temptations and struggles of their parentsA lot of that is learned behavior, but yes, there is evidence for the genetic as well. Does genetic mean generational as used in the bible? Looking up 'visit - iniquit' it is clear it is judgment and consequence of the iniquity not hereditary iniquity.

Some believe the soul is passed from the father, but even if that were true (only considering this as a possibility), the natural order in reproduction of flesh and passing of the soul does not suggest generational sin as a curse, but seed with life in itself -after it's own kind. Life cycle as found in the natural order of creation -Genesis 1 and 1Cor 15. Because Adam, a natural mortal corruptible man, had both flesh and soul, his descendants naturally have both. There is no temptation taken you but such as is common to man. Adam and Eve had flesh. They had the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life. They saw the fruit, that it was good for food, and able to make them wise.
The problem is in thinking more highly of Adam than we ought, thinking Adam was spiritual instead of natural as scripture plainly declares (1Co 15:46). God said 'it is good' not 'it is perfect'. He said the same for all the seed (seed must suffer corruption and die in order to yield) yielding and bringing forth after it's own kind -Genesis 1, 1Cor 15.



i also think that the verse that says through one mans transgression the many were made sinners means that we all sinned in Adam. im aware some think it simply mean we are charged with adams sin but not actually given a sin nature and thats fine we can agree to disagree for nowCharged with Adam's sin as in damned eternally would be imputed sin, and that is not what Romans 5 or any scripture says. The judgment (condemnation) was physical death not eternal damnation. Man still lives, begats sons and daughters, and dies. He lives his own life to sin his own sin and is responsible (able to respond) for that sin and for repentance from dead works and of faith towards God.

Adam no longer having the tree of life was not a change in his natural corruptible mortal nature (1Cor 15) just a loss of the escape from his natural corruptible mortal nature. There's no reason to think either Adam's nature was changed when he sinned or that we inherit that changed nature.

I'll even give you 'spiritual death', however a change in relationship is not a change in nature.

all i know is that plain evidence shows that many times certain sins are perpetuated from generation to generation. just looking at the world, it can be seen that women and men often have the same temptations and struggles of their parents

Couldn't this be explained in terms of training and education? or lack thereof?

Studies show certain problems are inherited and run in families even if the baby is removed from the parents at birth. Bipolar, addiction, depression, ADHD, allergies, heart disease, etc, etc...

They don't have to learn it from their parents. Some have tried to show through twin studies that homosexuality is inherited even though those studies proved to be bad.

I think we don't realize how deeply sin has corrupted ever our very genes.

And yes we are born with a sin nature. No one teaches a toddler to hit and bite to take a toy from another child...instead they have to be taught to share...to over ride that sin nature. Its a long process to teach a child how to behave. If people think we have no sin nature...just look at the children in our society that are not corrected...not taught right from wrong...they naturally choose to do wrong.

Paul speaks of struggling with fleshly desires:

Romans 7

13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.

God bless

And yes we are born with a sin nature. No one teaches a toddler to hit and bite to take a toy from another child...instead they have to be taught to share...to over ride that sin nature. Its a long process to teach a child how to behave. If people think we have no sin nature...just look at the children in our society that are not corrected...not taught right from wrong...they naturally choose to do wrong.
no one had to teach Adam and Eve to sin either ;) . Did they have a sin nature? No. If people think we have a sin nature, just look at Adam and Eve and how they gave in to their fleshly desires. If that's the definition of a sin nature, they had it too. No, fleshly desires is not the definition of a sin nature, for God tempts no man, including Adam and Eve, but man is tempted when drawn away by his own lusts and enticed.

The scripture I have in mind is the second? commandment.

4"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. 5"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
6but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.



In his explanation, it would seem that God will hold a man's children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren accountable for the father's idol worship. Because God commands, elsewhere, that the children not be held accountable for the sins of the fathers, I tend to read this passage differently. It isn't as if God is going to punish a man's children for the man's idol worship. I think the children will copy their father's idol worship and a man's children will continue to copy their father for many generations after that.



It's not biological. It's simply a matter of emulating a man we love, our grandpa. We want to do what grandpa did because we love and like grandpa. He always treats us special.

Right. Also note it is to 'those that hate Me' -idol worship, but He 'shows lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments'.

A lot of that is learned behavior, but yes, there is evidence for the genetic as well. Does genetic mean generational as used in the bible? Looking up 'visit - iniquit' it is clear it is judgment and consequence of the iniquity not hereditary iniquity.

Some believe the soul is passed from the father, but even if that were true (only considering this as a possibility), the natural order in reproduction of flesh and passing of the soul does not suggest generational sin as a curse, but seed with life in itself -after it's own kind. Life cycle as found in the natural order of creation -Genesis 1 and 1Cor 15. Because Adam, a natural mortal corruptible man, had both flesh and soul, his descendants naturally have both. There is no temptation taken you but such as is common to man. Adam and Eve had flesh. They had the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life. They saw the fruit, that it was good for food, and able to make them wise.
The problem is in thinking more highly of Adam than we ought, thinking Adam was spiritual instead of natural as scripture plainly declares (1Co 15:46). God said 'it is good' not 'it is perfect'. He said the same for all the seed (seed must suffer corruption and die in order to yield) yielding and bringing forth after it's own kind -Genesis 1, 1Cor 15.


Charged with Adam's sin as in damned eternally would be imputed sin, and that is not what Romans 5 or any scripture says. The judgment (condemnation) was physical death not eternal damnation. Man still lives, begats sons and daughters, and dies. He lives his own life to sin his own sin and is responsible (able to respond) for that sin and for repentance from dead works and of faith towards God.

Adam no longer having the tree of life was not a change in his natural corruptible mortal nature (1Cor 15) just a loss of the escape from his natural corruptible mortal nature. There's no reason to think either Adam's nature was changed when he sinned or that we inherit that changed nature.

I'll even give you 'spiritual death', however a change in relationship is not a change in nature.

i am well aware of the other positions/interpretations of romans 5 but i still think condemned also would carry the notion of being condemned and guilty in the sight of a holy God not just a condemnation of physical/spiritual death but as far as the verse about visiting the inquity for generations..
i think that particular verse is reffering to judgement and curses such as causing the nation of israel to be enslaved to another nation. in that sense, the sins of the fathers cause generations to suffer fro the consequences of their fathers sin. i dont believe this verse is talking anything about a sin nature. however i believe romans 5 is. as i said i know there are other views and that is understandable but that is my current conviction of being the correct interpretation

no one had to teach Adam and Eve to sin either ;) . Did they have a sin nature? No. If people think we have a sin nature, just look at Adam and Eve and how they gave in to their fleshly desires. If that's the definition of a sin nature, they had it too. No, fleshly desires is not the definition of a sin nature, for God tempts no man, including Adam and Eve, but man is tempted when drawn away by his own lusts and enticed.

And how did he get these lusts and desires in him in the first place? That is the question isn't it?

Where did they come from?

We could have all been born with the desire to only do good..and rarely bad..but since God gave us freewill, it seems the desire to do bad comes first...but why if its not in our nature to do so as you say.

God bless

Couldn't this be explained in terms of training and education? or lack thereof?

the way i see it is like Jesus said, out of the heart comes all kinds of wickedness, and the bible says we are by nature objects of His wrath. also there are a few Sriptures talking about going astray from the womb. then of course the verse that says through one man the many were made sinners. whn i read all of this it is my conviction and interpretation that we are indeed by nature sinfully flawed from birth. i believe adam and eve did not have a sin nature, they sinned from free will, but after adam sinned i believe that every baby born of a human man(the head) is affected by adams sin in their being.

i am well aware of the various positions and interpretations and im not here to debate or prove im right or anything just sharing my two cents. i doubt that lack of training is the key. for example, many poeple go to rehabs and recieve all kinds of anti-this or anti-that or just say no to this type of education and training but then later on they just revert back to sinful desires. so i think it is deeper than just not being educated/trained. this world is oversturated with information and knowledge and science and psychology, yet humanity is becoming progressively more and more evil as time goes by imo. in the end times i think we will see just how evil mankind can be

and the bible says we are by nature objects of His wrath.It is the nature of those that have.....

in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind;

.....that are objects of God's wrath. There's no infants here.

And how did he get these lusts and desires in him in the first place? That is the question isn't it?

Where did they come from?

We could have all been born with the desire to only do good..and rarely bad..but since God gave us freewill, it seems the desire to do bad comes first...but why if its not in our nature to do so as you say.

God blessNatural corruptible mortal man was created with them, obviously. Why is even more obvious. Redemption in Christ-the mystery of Christ, slain from the foundation of the world before man was created. That is why natural man with flesh was declared good. Faith! If God created man immortal and incorruptible and spiritual, first of all how could man sin.....did God fail, and second of all man would not have to trust God and have a trail of faith. Basically created to obey and serve God while having will and volition, the end result is another fall of Lucifer situation in man flavor and that would have been bad, not good. Why would God have done that?

It is the nature of those that have.....

in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind;

.....that are objects of God's wrath.

you were by nature objects of God wrath....as is the rest of mankind.

ive heard this agrument before. basically you are saying that by sinning they then had a nature of wrath. however if you read carefully, paul is simply listing different aspects of the unsaved human, he is not describing any kind of systematic cause-effect type of thing

he says: you were this, and this, and this, and this, and this

he doesnt say you were this, which lead to this, which lead to this, which caused you to have this nature etc.

its like me saying you were tall, had brown hair, had a blue shirt, and lived in california. that doesnt mean anything listed caused the others to happen

2:1And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body [1] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Ephesians+2#f1) and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.


he did not say, and because of all this, you developed a nature of wrath. he simply says and were by nature, not, because of this became by nature


is this talking about babies? not specifically, but it is indeed talking abuot all of mankind. i believe babies are part of mankind, and that we are born sinful. i can understand if you disagree with that view , your interpretation is certainly understandable, and i dont think any of us can fully know how God deals with the aborted.

however i would challenge you to prove with this passage that the nature of wrath in ephesians 2:3 was the result of carrying out the desires of the body. it seems that objects of wrath is just another item on the list of our depravity when i read it. i dont see how you can read "and were by nature" to mean: "and because of this became by nature"

It plainly says it was the result of this, and this, and this, and because of all this, just as you have said.
Not babies specifically but about mankind including babies? He IS NOT writing to babies!!!! Hello! Are babies his audience? Are they the ones that walked according to a course, in times past, and had a conversation which is defined by word and deed? No, they are not!

The word is not mankind including babies, look at the Greek! It is those that walked according to a course, in times past, and had a conversation which is defined by word and deed. Context defines them not theologians!!!! Babies had not repented from their past lives, believed, and been baptized!!!!
loipoi

Masculine plural of a derivative of G3007; remaining ones: - other, which remain, remnant, residue, rest.

1) remaining, the rest
1a) the rest of any number or class under consideration
1b) with a certain distinction and contrast, the rest, who are not of a specific class or number
1c) the rest of the things that remain

Total KJV Occurrences: 41

other, 16
Mat_25:11, Mar_4:19, Luk_18:11, Luk_24:10, Act_17:9, Rom_1:13, 1Co_9:5, 1Co_15:37, 2Co_12:13, 2Co_13:2, Gal_2:13, Eph_4:17, Phi_1:13, Phi_4:3, 2Pe_3:16, Rev_8:13

rest, 12
Mat_27:49, Luk_12:26, Luk_24:9, Act_2:37, Act_5:13, Act_27:44, Rom_11:7, 1Co_7:12, 1Co_11:34, Rev_2:24, Rev_9:20, Rev_20:5

others, 7
Luk_8:10, Act_28:9 (2), Eph_2:3, 1Th_4:13, 1Th_5:6, 1Ti_5:20

remnant, 4
Mat_22:6, Rev_11:13, Rev_12:17, Rev_19:21

remain, 1
Rev_3:2

residue, 1
Mar_16:13

Not much of a challenge to prove. Next!

It plainly says it was the result of this, and this, and this, and because of all this, just as you have said.
Not babies specifically but about mankind including babies? He IS NOT writing to babies!!!! Hello! Are babies his audience? Are they the ones that walked according to a course, in times past, and had a conversation which is defined by word and deed? No, they are not!

The word is not mankind including babies, look at the Greek! It is those that walked according to a course, in times past, and had a conversation which is defined by word and deed. Context defines them not theologians!!!! Babies had not repented from their past lives, believed, and been baptized!!!!
loipoi

Masculine plural of a derivative of G3007; remaining ones: - other, which remain, remnant, residue, rest.

1) remaining, the rest
1a) the rest of any number or class under consideration
1b) with a certain distinction and contrast, the rest, who are not of a specific class or number
1c) the rest of the things that remain

Total KJV Occurrences: 41

other, 16
Mat_25:11, Mar_4:19, Luk_18:11, Luk_24:10, Act_17:9, Rom_1:13, 1Co_9:5, 1Co_15:37, 2Co_12:13, 2Co_13:2, Gal_2:13, Eph_4:17, Phi_1:13, Phi_4:3, 2Pe_3:16, Rev_8:13

rest, 12
Mat_27:49, Luk_12:26, Luk_24:9, Act_2:37, Act_5:13, Act_27:44, Rom_11:7, 1Co_7:12, 1Co_11:34, Rev_2:24, Rev_9:20, Rev_20:5

others, 7
Luk_8:10, Act_28:9 (2), Eph_2:3, 1Th_4:13, 1Th_5:6, 1Ti_5:20

remnant, 4
Mat_22:6, Rev_11:13, Rev_12:17, Rev_19:21

remain, 1
Rev_3:2

residue, 1
Mar_16:13

Not much of a challenge to prove. Next!


please point out the phrase or words that say or imply "as a result of". maybe im just not seeing it. let me try again

And you were dead ok,i was deadin sins, thats descriptive, not causal
in which you once walked ok, i walked in those sins in which i was dead, thats further descriptive, not causal

following the course of this world ok, i was following the course of the world, still sounds descriptive, i have yet to see any causal language

following the prince of the power of the air once again, following, yet another descriptive

the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— ok, the spirit that is at work in the sons of disobedience was in me, further descriptive, yet to see any causal language

3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh- ok, no problem here, no causal language

carrying out the desires of the body [1] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Ephesians+2#f1) and the mind- ok, further descriptive, i was carrying out the desires of my body

and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. -ok, i was also by nature a child of wrath, i have yet to see any causal language?

as i said i respect your view on the baby thing and that is fine if you dont agree with me there, and im not arguing so much on that point. however you said it plainly says : because of this such and such happened, i didnt see the word because, or which lead to, or, which became, or which caused or anything like that,

but once again maybe i missed it? maybe you could humor me and point it out?

So we are not born with a sin nature? Just born condemned?

Oh c'mon crossnote, why can't it be both?
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
(Eph 2:3)

Because scripture does not equate natural man to sin nature?

please point out the phrase or words that say or imply "as a result of". maybe im just not seeing it. let me try again

as i said i respect your view on the baby thing and that is fine if you dont agree with me there, and im not arguing so much on that point. however you said it plainly says : because of this such and such happened, i didnt see the word because, or which lead to, or, which became, or which caused or anything like that,

but once again maybe i missed it? maybe you could humor me and point it out?You read it
‘were by your sin nature children of wrath’
but it says
‘were by nature children of wrath’

You read your theology into it. You must first prove a sin nature that is not found in Judaism and has always been disputed in the Church.

So yes, you have missed it, so lets try another approach.

you who were dead in trespasses and sins.
That's their sins they committed is it not? Proof?
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air…
Col 2:13 says “dead in your trespasses and sins”
This is the same as
so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

So we’re not dead in Adam’s sin but our own. Sin is certain for us because Adam sinned.
Are you with me so far? No? Why not? Because it first says...
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;

The first Adam didn't do what the last Adam did, did he? No. If, and that's the biggest if you will ever hear, the first Adam did what the last Adam (just the second man –1Co 15:47) did, which is obey, sin would not have been given entrance (sin entered the world) to mans dominion and given power against mans authority. For God crowned man with glory and honor and put all things in subjection to man. Did He not? Yes He did! God’s intention was for Adam to do what Jesus (the last Adam and second man) did. To say otherwise means God intended Adam to sin and created him to do so. That’s not scriptural.

Now what you need to see here is the term 'man' or 'Adam'. Scripture says Adam (man) was natural (1Cor 15). It plainly says the natural came first, does it not? Yes it does. There's no dispute here. If you do not accept this, nothing I or scripture says can help you see the truth. We are ‘in Adam’. That’s the image we naturally bear, for in natural earthy corruptible mortal Adam all men are natural earthy corruptible mortal and die. The means by which Adam was to escape physical death was the tree of life. Once that, and an intimate unveiled relationship with God (Eph 2:12), was taken away, death passed on all men. Sin was certain for all. Only the first and second man (1Co 15:47) had an intimate relationship with God from 'birth'.

Now here's the shocker. Are you ready? Adam....
walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind;

Please read that a few times.
Is that not correct? Is that not what ALL natural men do? Now, Adam was natural but he was also just one of two men that had that level of an intimate unveiled relationship with God from ‘birth’ that could overcome sin. God did not create man with a sin nature, He created man natural, with flesh, having lusts and desires. A man with an intimate unveiled relationship with God is expected to not sin. Welcome to Christianity. Adam was expected to not sin. Jesus was expected to not sin.

A man born without hope and without God (Eph 2:12) is designated (made) a sinner. Sin is certain. How can he not sin without the proper God designed restraint? He will....
walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

He did not….
walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

…because he has a sin nature. He….
walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

because he is born into this world without hope and with God –intimate unveiled relationship (Eph 2:12).
The restraint was removed. The nature was the same for all in Adam including Adam and Jesus. The restraint Adam and Jesus had was removed. The relationship changed, not the nature. So we are objects of Gods wrath because of sin we commit and we commit that sin, not because God created us to sin, not because of our nature alone, but because we are born without hope and without God in this world and are therefore made (designated) sinners. Sin is certain because of a lack of relationship not because of our nature.

You say, ‘but Adam sinned’, yes, and Jesus the captain of our salvation did not.

You read it
‘were by your sin nature children of wrath’
but it says
‘were by nature children of wrath’

You read your theology into it. You must first prove a sin nature that is not found in Judaism and has always been disputed in the Church.

So yes, you have missed it, so lets try another approach.

you who were dead in trespasses and sins.
That's their sins they committed is it not? Proof?
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air…
Col 2:13 says “dead in your trespasses and sins”
This is the same as
so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

So we’re not dead in Adam’s sin but our own. Sin is certain for us because Adam sinned.
Are you with me so far? No? Why not? Because it first says...
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;

The first Adam didn't do what the last Adam did, did he? No. If, and that's the biggest if you will ever hear, the first Adam did what the last Adam (just the second man –1Co 15:47) did, which is obey, sin would not have been given entrance (sin entered the world) to mans dominion and given power against mans authority. For God crowned man with glory and honor and put all things in subjection to man. Did He not? Yes He did! God’s intention was for Adam to do what Jesus (the last Adam and second man) did. To say otherwise means God intended Adam to sin and created him to do so. That’s not scriptural.

Now what you need to see here is the term 'man' or 'Adam'. Scripture says Adam (man) was natural (1Cor 15). It plainly says the natural came first, does it not? Yes it does. There's no dispute here. If you do not accept this, nothing I or scripture says can help you see the truth. We are ‘in Adam’. That’s the image we naturally bear, for in natural earthy corruptible mortal Adam all men are natural earthy corruptible mortal and die. The means by which Adam was to escape physical death was the tree of life. Once that, and an intimate unveiled relationship with God (Eph 2:12), was taken away, death passed on all men. Sin was certain for all. Only the first and second man (1Co 15:47) had an intimate relationship with God from 'birth'.

Now here's the shocker. Are you ready? Adam....
walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind;

Please read that a few times.
Is that not correct? Is that not what ALL natural men do? Now, Adam was natural but he was also just one of just two men that had that level of an intimate unveiled relationship with God from ‘birth’ that could overcome sin. God did not create man with a sin nature, He created man natural, with flesh, having lusts and desires. A man with an intimate unveiled relationship with God is expected to not sin. Welcome to Christianity. Adam was expected to not sin. Jesus was expected to not sin.

A man born without hope and without God (Eph 2:12) is designated (made) a sinner. Sin is certain. How can he not sin without the proper God designed restraint? He will....
walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

He did not….
walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

…because he has a sin nature. He….
walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

because he is born into this world without hope and with God –intimate unveiled relationship (Eph 2:12).
The restraint was removed. The nature was the same for all in Adam including Adam and Jesus. The restraint Adam and Jesus had was removed. The relationship changed, not the nature. So we are objects of Gods wrath because of sin we commit and we commit that sin, not because God created us to sin, not because of our nature alone, but because we are born without hope and without God in this world and are therefore made (designated) sinners. Sin is certain because of a lack of relationship not because of our nature.

You say, ‘but Adam sinned’, yes, and Jesus the captain of our salvation did not.

that was an interesting way of explaining your position, however i wasnt really trying to argue for adam giving us a sin nature here, i already understand you do not believe that, so why would i waste my time trying to make you change your beliefs? i am very well aware of your position, however i was trying to show you that the "nature" spoken of in ephesians 2 was not said to be brought about because of sin in that passage. the begginning of ephesians 2 is a list, not a cause effect. let me show you again what i mean:

1.And you were dead in the trespasses and sins

2.in which you once walked

3.following the course of this world

4.following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience

5.among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh

6.carrying out the desires of the body and the mind

7.and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind

i was simply saying that point number 7 was not said to be caused by the previous points in this passage, it was simply another point on the list.

i saw you had made a comment about "reading my theology" into the scripture. this is my theology:

1. all mankind has a nature that is deserving of Gods wrath, only sin incurs Gods wrath. God does not get angry for no reason. He only feels wrath toward sin and rebellion. when it says "mankind" i believe it indeed means "mankind" (as a whole, as an existence, as a species)

2. the wicked go astray from the womb, and we are sinful from our mothers womb.(psalm 51:5)

3. the tresspass of Adam led to condemnation for all, and made all sinners.


18 Therefore, as one trespass [5] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+5#f5) led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness [6] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+5#f6) leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

so we see man has a sinful nature, that by adam we were made condemned sinners, and that we are sinful from the womb. the bible says that we are sinful before we even sin (psalm 51:5).

so, if we are counted sinful before we are even born to commit a sin, where did that sinfulness come from? it had to come from somewhere.

my belief is based on scripture so i would prefer if you do not accuse me of: "reading my theology into" a verse. in fact, i kinda dont like reformed theology, it can be despairing somtimes, but i have yet to disprove it, so therefore i call myself reformed, because i simply try to believe what is true

you may disagree with my interpretation of Scripture, but please do not accuse me of "reading my theology into a verse"

It's rather funny to even think Adam had the power to give all men a sin nature. ;)
But mans doctrine of original sin is the root of the issue in Eph 2 whether you want to address it or not.

One cannot be an object of God's wrath until they have committed their own sin. That's pretty simple and declared from cover to cover.

I agree that one reason we sin is because of our flesh, but is that the only reason? Of course not! You do propagate spiritual death do you not? Flesh is not our nature. It's but a part of our nature. We also have a soul and spirit. Soul and spirit, also being separated from God, is the most important and biggest contributing factor to why we sin -See Adam and Jesus.

So to say we sin because we have flesh is shallow to say the least. It is not the only reason we sin so it cannot be labeled the only cause of our sin and it cannot be labeled nature -essence. Is that simple enough for you? Flesh is not and cannot be a nature, unless that's all we are. It is not.

Your belief is based on mans theology and you read through their lens, plain and simple. It's not based on scripture because no scripture says the nature of Adam changed!!! That's pure assumption! It's not in Judaism and that should give you pause. I will not sugar coat this. It is too simple and too obvious, not for those that haven't been told the truth, but once told, you are without excuse. You continue to deny Adam was natural and that the natural came first despite scripture plainly saying so. You deny natural man sins because he is born in this world without God. Because of this denial you claim a natural man had the power to change the image of God in man through genetics and re-tool God's creation. Sorry, but man is not a creator and something so flawed could only be birthed through man and come to be understood through a lens darkly.



2. the wicked go astray from the womb, and we are sinful from our mothers womb.(psalm 51:5)born without a relationship with God
That verse does not say man is born in and guilty of sin because it clearly says man is born then goes astray.
Why? because he is born without a relationship with God!!!!


3. the tresspass of Adam led to condemnation for all, and made all sinners.judgment for all.
What was the judgment passed down to Adam in Genesis 3?

all designated/ordained sinners
Yes, because all are born without a relationship with God!!!!

You say you don't want to argue this but then you try to. Which is it?

The reason reformed theology is despairing to you is because it is dead wrong and your heart knows it! The Spirit will lead and guide you into all truth.
You haven't disproved it because you haven't removed the lenses!

The reason reformed theology is despairing to you is because it is dead wrong and your heart knows it! The Spirit will lead and guide you into all truth.
You haven't disproved it because you haven't removed the lenses!

ok,
you are getting far to excited as i dont feel any of what you just posted here lol i am hardly "despairing".

let me put it like this:

not all reformed believers adhere to the original sin concept as augstine taught. (that man inherited the sinful corruption of Adam directly)

whether we have a sinful nature(wicked hearts) because of Adams transferred corruption, or because of our own admission, it doesnt make reformed theology false, so i dont see why you feel that i am supposed to be crying in a corner or something as if my world is collapsing lol


in fact, i will admit that my beliefs concerning original sin are not solid yet.

it doesnt change the fact that the intent of men is evil from their youth and that our hearts are full of evil and that our spirits need to be quickened by the Holy Spirit. it doesnt change the fact that we must be born again. it doesnt change the fact that the spirit gives life. it doesnt change the fact that there is none righteous. it doesnt change the fact that out of the heart comes all wickedness. it doesnt change the fact that our minds, wills, and hearts, are effected by sin, or that we were made sinners and that ALL die in Adam, so i do not see why you are getting so giddy as if you have turned my world upside down :rofl:

just calm down why are you getting that excited over a theological discussion?

whether evil comes from our hearts because of Adam or because of us or both it doesnt make "my theology" any different dude. if anything all it would mean is that all babies go to heaven and all children who have not yet sinned go to heaven. big deal. praise God if that is true. i hope its true. (though that is not the way i see it in Scripture at this point)

however anyone who has the mental capacity to understand the gospel is a sinner, who is inwardly corrupt and in need of spiritual re-birth, so i dont see why i would be "despairing"?

At the end of the day, Adam was a type of Christ. If Adams sin is in no way similar to Jesus obedience, then he is in no way a "type" of Christ. Through one mans sin the many were made sinners. therfore, you a born a sinner. not very hard to understand.

At the end of the day, Adam was a type of Christ. If Adams sin is in no way similar to Jesus obedience, then he is in no way a "type" of Christ. Through one mans sin the many were made sinners. therfore, you a born a sinner. not very hard to understand.
Yes because I was born without hope because I was born without God......and if all are eternally damned because of Adam then all are saved by Christ's righteousness.
That's not what it says is it? So back to the drawing board for reformer's.
It must mean something else.
As I have repeatedly said, condemnation in Romans 5 and 8 is not eternal damnation but the judgment (meaning of condemnation here found just 3x in these verses) passed down to Adam from God -death (Gen 3), because man must sin his own sin to be guilty eternally which is not, and cannot, be accomplished by one for another without consent through action. If it could, then in the same way, ALL are righteous and sanctified eternally by one without consent or action, and we know that is not the case. Don't we?
What scripture teaches is that all are born without God and will sin because of that, but because of the longsuffering of God, all have the opportunity to repent.
It's very simple!

Yes because I was born without hope because I was born without God......and if all are eternally damned because of Adam then all are saved by Christ's righteousness.
That's not what it says is it? So back to the drawing board for reformer's.
It must mean something else.
As I have repeatedly said, condemnation in Romans 5 and 8 is not eternal damnation but the judgment (meaning of condemnation here found just 3x in these verses) passed down to Adam from God -death (Gen 3), because man must sin his own sin to be guilty eternally which is not, and cannot, be accomplished by one for another without consent through action. If it could, then in the same way, ALL are righteous and sanctified eternally by one without consent or action, and we know that is not the case. Don't we?
What scripture teaches is that all are born without God and will sin because of that, but because of the longsuffering of God, all have the opportunity to repent.
It's very simple!

But, unless there is first a change of heart who will repent?

Many Blessings,
RW

But, unless there is first a change of heart who will repent?Scripture doesn't say there must be a change of heart before repentance. Repentance is the change of mind. Jesus said the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

Why this is difficult? Above reformedct contended that Adam was a figure of Christ, and he was, but not by sin -Adam. Through his sin he brought physical death and caused a veil to be put between God and man, in our relationship. Jesus offers eternal life and has reconciled us to God. That's the figure. It doesn't say Adams sin is our sin.

And how did he get these lusts and desires in him in the first place? That is the question isn't it?

Where did they come from?

We could have all been born with the desire to only do good..and rarely bad..but since God gave us freewill, it seems the desire to do bad comes first...but why if its not in our nature to do so as you say.

God bless
The word used in the Greek New Testament that is translated as "flesh" is "sarx".

It refers to the physical body, as opposed to what is spiritual.

It's the same word used in verses such as Luke 3:6 "...and all flesh shall see the salvation of God."

It's also used in John 3:6 when Jesus said; "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

After Adam sinned, God drove him from the Garden of Eden, and banned him from the tree of life.

Genesis 3:22-24 "Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—" therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life."

As a result, we also do not have access to the tree of life. When we are born, we are separated from God (spiritually).

That why Jesus said; "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' " (John 3:7)

Since we are born physically, not spiritually, we do not have the advantage of the Holy Spirit to direct our hearts and minds. We naturally do what the body desires.

Those desires aren't inherently sinful, though; just natural. (similar to animals?)

So when we begin to be aware of right and wrong, we are already accustomed to choosing whatever pleases the body (flesh).

If we get a sense that maybe giving into a particular desire is inappropriate in a certain instance, it's foreign to us.

That's why James can say:

James 1:14-15 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

Once we've made a choice contrary to our conscience, we've sinned.

Romans 2:14-15 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

Once we've sinned, we are guilty, and condemned by our conscience, becoming slaves to sin.

Romans 6:15 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Romans 6:19 For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

you were by nature objects of God wrath....as is the rest of mankind.

ive heard this agrument before. basically you are saying that by sinning they then had a nature of wrath. however if you read carefully, paul is simply listing different aspects of the unsaved human, he is not describing any kind of systematic cause-effect type of thing

he says: you were this, and this, and this, and this, and this

he doesnt say you were this, which lead to this, which lead to this, which caused you to have this nature etc.

its like me saying you were tall, had brown hair, had a blue shirt, and lived in california. that doesnt mean anything listed caused the others to happen

2:1And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body [1] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Ephesians+2#f1) and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.


he did not say, and because of all this, you developed a nature of wrath. he simply says and were by nature, not, because of this became by nature


is this talking about babies? not specifically, but it is indeed talking abuot all of mankind. i believe babies are part of mankind, and that we are born sinful. i can understand if you disagree with that view , your interpretation is certainly understandable, and i dont think any of us can fully know how God deals with the aborted.

however i would challenge you to prove with this passage that the nature of wrath in ephesians 2:3 was the result of carrying out the desires of the body. it seems that objects of wrath is just another item on the list of our depravity when i read it. i dont see how you can read "and were by nature" to mean: "and because of this became by nature"

deja vu! I think we've had this discussion before. ;)

I'm curious as to why you think Ephesians 2:3 implies that humanity is born with a sinful nature?

Scripture doesn't say there must be a change of heart before repentance. Repentance is the change of mind. Jesus said the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.

Why this is difficult? Above reformedct contended that Adam was a figure of Christ, and he was, but not by sin -Adam. Through his sin he brought physical death and caused a veil to be put between God and man, in our relationship. Jesus offers eternal life and has reconciled us to God. That's the figure. It doesn't say Adams sin is our sin.



as if the wicked stony heart of man has no effect on his mind which would allow him to appreciate the kindness of God. the mind is not seperate from the heart. "For out of the heart come evil thoughts," the whole reason people dont "change their minds" is because of their hearts.

repentance is not simply a change of mind, though it includes that. without God opening your heart you wouldnt even take heed to the gospel. if you dont take heed to the gospel how can you repent and respond to that which you have never taken heed. God does indeed open the heart SO THAT YOU WILL HEED THE GOSPEL. if you never heed you will never repent. it would just sound like foolishness or if you were jewish it would simply be a stumbling block

Bill Bright, an unreformed guy, said something interesting about his 28 years of evangelism. He said that pretty much everybody who was intelligent believed everything the Bible said about Jesus when presented the evidence. you can mentally change and agree with everything the Bible says but if it doesnt result in a changed life it is not the repentance that is required for eternal life. i can change my mind all day but if a changed life does not result i will be damned



Also we know for a fact that if anyone is gonna repent it must be granted them from God, so its not just a change of mind, it is a gift from God.

we also know for a fact that it is with the heart that one believes. if you dont believe why in the world would you repent to or towards something that you dont even believe. that would be like a muslim telling me to repent. why would i? i dont believe that muslims are right. if someone does not believe in the truthfulness of the gospel why would they "repent?"

it is the kindness of God that leads you to repentance. if you do not believe God is kind why repent? God is not glorified in nor does He desire bregrudging submission. God wants willing repentance. if your heart is wicked and stony why would you mentally repent? that doesnt make much sense at all.


and actually it says that condemnation and judgement also came and that through one mans disobedience the many were MADE SINNERS. it wasnt only death that spread. death is not just a consequence of adams sin, it is a judgement. we not only die in Adam, but we were also made sinners through ONE tresspass.

through our disobedience or the disobedience of the one man? lets see what the bible says:

through one mans disobedience

what was the result of that one mans disobedience

the many were made sinners

romans 5:19-

19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners,



by


the


one

mans

disobedience

the


many

were

made

sinners



that is imputed guilt, it is so plain and clear i dont see how you could deny such a simple truth? if we cant agree on this then there is no need to argue. either we all became sinners because of adam or we all sinned in adam, because we were all made sinners THROUGH his tresspass. it doesnt say :

Through one mans bad example the many were born apart from God and thus were more prone to sin and then became sinners. we became sinners THROUGH the one tresspass

i am well aware that you dont see this to mean inherited sin nature, which is fine by me, but please do not say that it was only death that came because of adam. we were made, or ordained or appointed or inherited or however you wanna say it: sinners, through the one mans tresspass

The word used in the Greek New Testament that is translated as "flesh" is "sarx".

It refers to the physical body, as opposed to what is spiritual.

It's the same word used in verses such as Luke 3:6 "...and all flesh shall see the salvation of God."

It's also used in John 3:6 when Jesus said; "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

After Adam sinned, God drove him from the Garden of Eden, and banned him from the tree of life.

Genesis 3:22-24 "Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—" therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life."

As a result, we also do not have access to the tree of life. When we are born, we are separated from God (spiritually).

That why Jesus said; "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' " (John 3:7)

Since we are born physically, not spiritually, we do not have the advantage of the Holy Spirit to direct our hearts and minds. We naturally do what the body desires.

Those desires aren't inherently sinful, though; just natural. (similar to animals?)

So when we begin to be aware of right and wrong, we are already accustomed to choosing whatever pleases the body (flesh).

If we get a sense that maybe giving into a particular desire is inappropriate in a certain instance, it's foreign to us.

That's why James can say:

James 1:14-15 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

Once we've made a choice contrary to our conscience, we've sinned.

Romans 2:14-15 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

Once we've sinned, we are guilty, and condemned by our conscience, becoming slaves to sin.

Romans 6:15 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Romans 6:19 For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

the fact still remains that through one mans tresspass the many were made sinners.


it does not say: through one man seperating himself from God we are now born seperated from God and then we are more prone to sin and thats how we are sinners


it clearly says through the one mans tresspass the many were made sinners

as i said before, if you dont believe this is inherited sin nature that is fine, but nevertheless you must affirm that all were made sinners through the one tresspass, not through the individuall tresspasses of the many.

do we sin because of our own desires? yup.

do we sin on our own account? yup.

are we sinners through Adams sin? yup.

All are true.


this is a tactic that is used to try to change the immediate context of passages such as romans 9. people take the OT refrences, or other passages, go to the text, and then make the immediate context agree with the OT context or other passages, which is not always the situation, as we see in galatians 4 when paul uses hagar to represent those under the law even though the OT context has nothing to do with that.


romans 5 is in its immediate context. to say that we were made sinners because Adam was seperated from God and now we are born apart from God and because of that we sin and THEN become sinners is taking another context and forcing it into the immediate context. it is fine to go into the actual account in genesis and study but that doesnt mean that the immediate context is ALWAYS talking about what the referred context is addressing. Paul is addressing how all are made sinners by Adams sin. this is not addressed in genesis in detail. another example is that Abel offered his sacrifice by faith, even though the genesis account does not deal with that detail. Paul is dealing with the details and implicatoins of the genesis account. this is one reason why many Jews reject the wrtings of Paul, because of the passage of Romans 5, implying imputed guilt. i have heard non-messianic jews say that imputed sin is not taught in the OT therefore Paul is a false teacher. Paul is indeed reffering to condemnation to all on account of one mans sin.


same with romans 9. paul is talking about how not all israel is true israel and how he wishes that he was cut off from christ on their behalf

then what people do is say: see! in the OT context its not talking about salvation, its taking about nations therefore the immediate context CANNOT be talking about individual salvation.


and although we are not born again at birth, we do indeed have spirits. without a spirit the body would be dead.

James 2:
26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

the whole point of romans 5 is to show that exactly how adams sin is imputed to us, so christs obedience is imputed to us:

18 Therefore, as one trespass [5] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=romans+5#f5) led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness [6] (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=romans+5#f6) leads to justification and life for all men.


the key words are AS ONE TRESSPASS. this is drawing the similarity between the tresspass and the act of righteousness. JUST AS ONE tresspass led to condemnation of ALL men, SO ONE act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.


the point is not individuals actions, the point is imputation of guilt and imputation of righteousness

two men

two actions

two destinies.

you are either under the one or the other. there is no third category of humanity. if you arent under jesus you are under adam. if you are not under jesus you are a sinner. not just because of your individual sin but mainly because of your representative.

if we are all sinners solely based on our own account how would Adam be a type of Christ? that wouldnt make any sense. that be like saying, we are all made righteous by Jesus act of righteousness, which means that because of His choice now we individually do acts of righteousness and then become justified solely because of our own acts of righteousness. Paul conitnually says: through one mans tresspass, by one mans tresspass, just as one tresspass, etc. thats also why i interpret the phrase death spread to all because all sinned to mean that all sinned in Adams tresspass. because the following verses are continually and repeatedly reffering to the one tresspass.

also, even if death is only what spread, it doesnt change the fact that we are born guilty, because death is not just a result of sin, it is a curse and a judgement. its not like a math problem. sin plus sin equals death. its sin equals Gods just judgement and a state of condemnation. the condemnation is not simply the fact that we die, the condemnation is an active judgement of God. so we are all born condemned/judged/sinners/guilty, thus we see the justice of God when He gives commands such as: "kill everything breathing" in the OT. i doubt that those cities attacked by the people of God had NO babies, or NO pregnant people.

it does not say: through one man seperating himself from God we are now born seperated from God and then we are more prone to sin and thats how we are sinners
that's exactly what it says. Ever hear, propensity to sin?



it clearly says through the one mans tresspass the many were made sinners
and again, what does 'made' mean and how is it used in scripture? As one is made to be judge! Is the nature of the one made to be judge altered because they were designated/ordained to be judge? Absolutely not!



as i said before, if you dont believe this is inherited sin nature that is fine, but nevertheless you must affirm that all were made sinners through the one tresspass, not through the individuall tresspasses of the many.
All I affirm is what all scripture teaches. That all are judged for their own sin. One verse misunderstood by many doesn't change the whole.



if we are all sinners solely based on our own account how would Adam be a type of Christ?because all are not righteous solely based on Christ's account!



also, even if death is only what spread, it doesnt change the fact that we are born guilty
sin must be committed to be eternally guilty



because death is not just a result of sin, it is a curse and a judgement.Scripture is very clear death is because of sin. Judgment to death is not eternal judgment. God is longsufferring willing that all repent. If they don't then eternal judgment.



the condemnation is not simply the fact that we die
It's not? Can you show me another judgment passed down to Adam in Genesis 3? No, you cannot. You have to run over to Romans and make preconceived bias assumptions based on your theology.



thus we see the justice of God when He gives commands such as: "kill everything breathing" in the OT. i doubt that those cities attacked by the people of God had NO babies, or NO pregnant people.
and why would one assume the babies were eternally damned?

the whole reason people dont "change their minds" is because of their hearts.
what scripture says this?


repentance is not simply a change of mind
It's not? What do you based this on?


without God opening your heart you wouldnt even take heed to the gospel. God does indeed open the heart SO THAT YOU WILL HEED THE GOSPEL.
Scripture?


Also we know for a fact that if anyone is gonna repent it must be granted them from God, so its not just a change of mind, it is a gift from God.
We do? I don't know that! 2Ti 2 doesn't say that! CONTEXT! It is a Pastoral letter and speaks of behavior among brethren concerning the truth and doctrine, and how some have erred, and we must be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Where is the gospel preached and a lost sinner saved in the context of this pastoral letter? You must pull this verse completely out of context for your theology to work.



we also know for a fact that it is with the heart that one believes
the spirit is willing...Jesus said....



it is the kindness of God that leads you to repentance
Right.

Rom 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

If God does it, what is he waiting on? Time? That's what it says!

Psa 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

If God does it, what is he looking for to see?




that is imputed guilt
no, it is imputed judgment.



if we cant agree on this then there is no need to argue
I have repeatedly asked for imputed sin, not imputed judgment -death. Exodus 20/the big Ten has imputed judgment. Big deal. Where is imputed sin?

what scripture says this?

It's not? What do you based this on?

Scripture?

We do? I don't know that! 2Ti 2 doesn't say that! CONTEXT! It is a Pastoral letter and speaks of behavior among brethren concerning the truth and doctrine, and how some have erred, and we must be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

Where is the gospel preached and a lost sinner saved in the context of this pastoral letter? You must pull this verse completely out of context for your theology to work.


the spirit is willing...Jesus said....


Right.

Rom 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

If God does it, what is he waiting on? Time? That's what it says!

Psa 14:2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

If God does it, what is he looking for to see?



no, it is imputed judgment.


I have repeatedly asked for imputed sin, not imputed judgment -death. Exodus 20/the big Ten has imputed judgment. Big deal. Where is imputed sin?


however you would like to say it, at the end of the day, we were all made sinners through the one tresspass.

im actually a little confused on your position at this point. do you not agree that all mankind became sinners through the one transgression? not in the sense that we are born apart from God etc etc but do you believe that we were actually all made(or ordained) SINNERS through the one tresspass?

if you agree that we were all made sinners through the one tresspass, i dont see how you could affirm that we are then somehow born not-sinners? perhaps i have misunderstood what you are saying?

im actually a little confused on your position at this point. do you not agree that all mankind became sinners through the one transgression? not in the sense that we are born apart from God etc etc but do you believe that we were actually all made(or ordained) SINNERS through the one tresspass?We are not all eternally damned "through the one trespass" because we must all sin our own sin and we have been given time to repent, but yes, we are are all condemned to die. We are sinners because we sin. All in Adam die and all in Adam sin, but all are not eternally damned because of Adam's sin, but because of their own sin. Born to be sinners (made =designated/ordained) not born sinners. You cannot be a sinner until you sin.

We are not all eternally damned "through the one trespass" because we must all sin our own sin and we have been given time to repent, but yes, we are are all condemned to die. We are sinners because we sin. All in Adam die and all in Adam sin, but all are not eternally damned because of Adam's sin, but because of their own sin. Born to be sinners (made =designated/ordained) not born sinners. You cannot be a sinner until you sin.

i think this is where we simply must agree to disagree.

you think made sinners doesnt really mean made sinners. you think it means made more likely to sin. thats basically what all this boils down to. it does not say "born to be sinners". i have never found that phrase in my Bible anywhere, it says made sinners, not made to one day be sinners. by saying that, you are making verse 19 say something that is not there. you have modified the verse to your own understanding. it clearly says we were made sinners through the one tresspass. to say that that simply means we are made more likely to sin seems like a mishandling of the Word of God. just like you would get on the case of any reformed person who interprets ephesians 2 to mean "sinful nature", so i would point out that you are changing the phrase made sinners into something else that is not there unless it is added and forced. when i read it, i see no time gap in which we are not made sinners until our own sin. it doesnt say, through one mans disobedience we are seperated from God thus becoming more prone to sin. although being seperated from God does make you more prone to sin, the Bible clearly says we were actually MADE or ORDAINED or APPOINTED as sinners THROUGH the tresspass, not through our own. it was through the one tresspass that resulted in us being MADE sinners, not made more likely to become.

this is what you want verse 19 to say in our Bibles:

9 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made more likely to be prone to sin since seperated from God and therefore sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

if thats what God meant to say He would have said it. instead the author is repeatedly inspired to place emphasis on the one mans sin and its result of death, condemnation, judgement, and appointing all men sinners

as far as all individually sinning, i believe that this statement.....:

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

......is reffering to all as counted as having sinned in Adam.

i believe John Wesley and many other well known unreformed theologians believe this:

Wesley's Notes (http://wes.biblecommenter.com/romans/5.htm)
5:12 Therefore - This refers to all the preceding discourse; from which the apostle infers what follows. He does not therefore properly make a digression, but returns to speak again of sin and of righteousness. As by one man - Adam; who is mentioned, and not Eve, as being the representative of mankind. Sin entered into the world - Actual sin, and its consequence, a sinful nature. And death - With all its attendants. It entered into the world when it entered into being; for till then it did not exist. By sin - Therefore it could not enter before sin. Even so - Namely, by one man. In that - So the word is used also, 2Cor 5:4. All sinned - In Adam. These words assign the reason why death came upon all men; infants themselves not excepted, in that all sinned.


so i would agree with you that we also die because we all sin. However i also(and many others from all forms of theological positions) interpret this to say that we did all sin-----in Adam's one trsspass. when Adam sinned, we all sinned. Adam was the mediator of a covenant. he was the head representative. that is why Eves eyes were not opened until Adam also ate. the effects came in full force after the head sinned.


in fact, you are the first one that i have ever heard to hold the position you do, the only other one i can think of is perhaps holyrokker here and pelagius(i dont mean that as an insult but to emphasize the rarity of my hearing this. im just saying that your position is not very popular. of course what is popular is not always right, however when people of all different denominations agree on something, and knowing that God is faithful and always reveals His truth to those who desire it, i am still convicted that the correct summary of romans 5 is the judgement of all mankind as sinners as a result of the one tresspass, just as the justification comes to all who are in the second man, Christ, through the one act of obedience. i am always open to the fact that i am human and can be wrong at times, however if i study and continually come up witht he same results i will maintain my position.)

also, i noticed your verse about the "spirit is willing" but the flesh is weak. in context Jesus was talking to his 11 true disciples in the garden of gethsemane right before Judas came and kissed Him. he was probably more specifically reffering to the fact that He was about to be crucfied so they should pray that they dont fall into sin while it happens. he was not talking about everyday non-Christians and enemies of God, those who are hostile to God who have hearts of stone that need to be changed and those who love darkness rather than the light. i am actually quite surprised that you would even try to use that verse to describe people before they are saved. that is way out of context.


i guess we will just have to disagree. it doesnt seem that either one of us will be changing our views anytime soon.:cool:

Scripture is very clear death is because of sin. Judgment to death is not eternal judgment. God is longsufferring willing that all repent. If they don't then eternal judgment.


It's not? Can you show me another judgment passed down to Adam in Genesis 3? No, you cannot. You have to run over to Romans and make preconceived bias assumptions based on your theology.


first off i dont believe i have mentione anything about eternal judgement, and i believe the whole point of romans 5 is to provide details of genesis that was not written down in genesis. Jus like in hebrews it says abel offered his sacrifice by faith. it doesnt say that in genesis, but because the writers are inspired by God, they are given more insight into earlier events. i am talking about the judgement in romans 5. the judgement of death and condemnation.

now let me see if i have this correct, if i dont please help me understand. you believe death only comes from sin. you believe that the many died through one mans tresspass. but you somehow seperate the judgement of death and condemnation through Adams sin from the sin itself?

as i said before, it seems like you simply have a grudge against reformed theology, you have made quite a few remarks against my beliefs to express your disdain. however i have not been arguing as a reformed theologian, i am simply looking at the text. im not over here quoting calvin or luther. im just looking at what the Bible says.

the bible clearly says that the many died through the one tresspass. it clearly says all were Made sinners through the tresspass. so when it previously states therefore death spread to all because all sinned, i feel that the flow and context is indeed saying that when adam sinned, all sinned. you may disagree with that interpretation, but there is no need to accuse me of clinging to pre-concieved notions or making sly remarks about others who in the passed believed what i did. i simply read the passage.

i am concerened over what seems to be a fierce dislike for the reformed camp. just because you disagree with a theology doesnt mean you have to have such a bitterness against it or those who believe it, especially when the case made for it is indeed biblical. if you have truly been forgiven of your debt of sin, seeing how merciful and gracious jesus was to you, why wouldnt you be kind, merciful and gracious to those who disagree with you? i dont agree with arminians but i dont have a deep bitterness towards them. you have made various statements such as

"back to the drawing board for the reformers" and "You have to run over to Romans and make preconceived bias assumptions based on your theology." or 'Your belief is based on mans theology and you read through their lens, plain and simple. It's not based on scripture because no scripture says the nature of Adam changed!!! That's pure assumption!"

the bible clearly says that sin dwells in our members and that out of the heart comes all sorts of evil. ther eis nothing good in our flesh. Jesus said whoever commits a sin is a slave to sin. the Bible says that people who sin are BY NATURE objects of Gods wrath. you say we are simply assuming and using man-made this and that. the Bible clearly says that sinners are by nature objects of Gods wrath. so please do not say that a change in adams nature is just a man-made theologically biased assumption. if the Bible says sinners are by nature objects of God wrath, it is not unbiblical to say:

sinners are by nature objects of wrath. jesus said whoever commits a sin is a slave to sin
Adam was a sinner. i

so if people conclude that after adam sinned he was by nature a child of wrath and a slave to sin, please do not shout "man-made doctrine" i have heard that accusation so many times. in fact, if we say: Adam sinned but he did not become by nature an object of Gods wrath, wouldnt that be unbiblical? you may disagree to what "nature" means. maybe you think it is spiritual, maybe you think it is fleshly, maybe you think it was something else, but please do not call people who believe adams nature changed because he sinned are "following man-made doctrines and presumptions and reading through their lens".

this is called biblical interpretation not man made presumptions

i also saw a remark about Jewish interpretation. i was just on a jewish website the other day, and it was explaining why Paul was a liar. one of the points made was that Paul was teaching imputed sin/guilt. the website was saying that since Paul was teaching this, he is a false teaacher. there are Jews who interpret Paul to be saying what i am saying(imputed guilt/sin), and in fact use it as a reason to try to prove the falsity of Pauls ministry. hopefully i can re-find the site in case you would be interested in checking it out.

all things said, i simply have read the passage. the many were made sinners through the one tresspass. you may feel strongly that i have misunderstood this verse, i feel strongly that you have misunderstood it. we just have to agree to disagree without stooping to the level of taking cheap shots.

you think made sinners doesnt really mean made sinners. you think it means made more likely to sin. thats basically what all this boils down to. it does not say "born to be sinners". i have never found that phrase in my Bible anywhere, it says made sinners, not made to one day be sinners. by saying that, you are making verse 19 say something that is not there. you have modified the verse to your own understanding. it clearly says we were made sinners through the one tresspass. to say that that simply means we are made more likely to sin seems like a mishandling of the Word of God.I don't think, I know. How? I go by the Greek and verify with how the word is used in Scripture. Out of ALL instances, there is two (in bold -Rom, 5:19, 2Pe 1:8) that indicate a change in nature. Neither are instant, consistent with how the word is used in ALL scripture.

kathistēmi
made,
Mat_24:45, Luk_12:14, Act_7:10, Act_7:27, Act_7:35, Rom_5:19 (2)
make,
Mat_24:47, Mat_25:21, Mat_25:23, Luk_12:42, Luk_12:44, 2Pe_1:8
ruler,
Mat_24:45, Mat_24:47, Mat_25:21, Mat_25:23, Luk_12:42, Luk_12:44
ordained,
Heb_5:1, Heb_8:3
appoint,
Act_6:3 (2)
conducted,
Act_17:15
maketh,
Heb_7:28
ordain,
Tit_1:5
set,
Heb_2:7

KJV
2Pe 1:8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

JSB Commentary
make — “render,” “constitute you,” habitually, by the very fact of possessing these graces.

Even here it is a process and accomplished by faith towards God. In Romans 5:19 it is a lack of faith towards God. It is not instantaneous but a process. Whether anyone admits it or not, there is not one, NOT ONE verse that indicates a change in Adam's nature the moment he sinned.

In 2Pe 1:8 the possession of the graces does not make an imediate change, they must abound, and over time (patience) with diligence they naturally bear fruit unto God. In the same way the lack of these from birth in Roman 5:19 over time naturally cause us to bear bad fruit because we are blind and cannot see afar off.

May I suggest you stop understanding 'kathistēmi' in the English translation and definition to be the same as 'ginomai'. 'Kathistēmi' is not 'made' as in, God made -insert. That's 'ginomai.

Do you really, still disagree? Seriously? Because if every usage of this word in scripture does not convince you of it's definition and usage in Romans 5, nothing will.



in fact, you are the first one that i have ever heard to hold the position you do
That explains a lot as to why you believe what you do. This is nothing new. This has been debated long before Pelagius and still is to this day. Most that believe as I do do not belong to a denomination.



also, i noticed your verse about the "spirit is willing" but the flesh is weak. in context Jesus was talking to his 11 true disciples in the garden of gethsemane right before Judas came and kissed Him. he was probably more specifically reffering to the fact that He was about to be crucfied so they should pray that they dont fall into sin while it happens. he was not talking about everyday non-Christians and enemies of God, those who are hostile to God who have hearts of stone that need to be changed and those who love darkness rather than the light. i am actually quite surprised that you would even try to use that verse to describe people before they are saved. that is way out of context.Would you like 50 other exampls? I'll make the time to post them if you are willing to read them.

i am talking about the judgement in romans 5. the judgement of death and condemnation.
....AND condemnation? Where does it say that? Two things were passed down? No, just one. Condemnation means judgment.
The Judgment of death was to Adam. The condemnation IS death to all because of Adam. That's the point.

judgment=krima
condemnation=katakrima

both have krima, but what is kata?
kata=down from, according to, after, along

So it says "for the judgment was by one to condemnation"
The judgment passed to Adam was passed down to ALL -death
Not death and condemnation. There's no AND in there. Just death.
Death is not a change in nature. A change in nature is not required for death. This is the assumption 'made'. Only sin is required for death. Adam's sin brought death to all, not an instant change in nature.



now let me see if i have this correct, if i dont please help me understand. you believe death only comes from sin. you believe that the many died through one mans tresspass. but you somehow seperate the judgement of death and condemnation through Adams sin from the sin itself?The judgment was death. I was born without an unveiled relationship with God and without the tree of life. How about you? Yes. Ok. What's the problem? I'm not being smart, but seriously, that's all it says! Adam sinned all die. Adam sinned and when I am born I am dying, will die, and because I have no relationship with God I sin and if I do not repent I will face the second death because the wages of sin is death.



this is called biblical interpretation not man made presumptionsNo? Then how do you explain such a gross interpretation of 'kathistēmi' in Romans 5? Just how can anyone get that so wrong when it is so obvious how that word is used in every single instance in scripture?



all things said, i simply have read the passage. the many were made sinners through the one tresspass.
Well, you should study to show yourself approved shouldn't you? Dig a little and do more than read an English translation. Look up all instances and see how the Greek word is used.

I don't think, I know. How? I go by the Greek and verify with how the word is used in Scripture. Out of ALL instances, there is two (in bold -Rom, 5:19, 2Pe 1:8) that indicate a change in nature. Neither are instant, consistent with how the word is used in ALL scripture.


May I suggest you stop understanding 'kathistēmi' in the English translation and definition to be the same as 'ginomai'. 'Kathistēmi' is not 'made' as in, God made -insert. That's 'ginomai.

Do you really, still disagree? Seriously? Because if every usage of this word in scripture does not convince you of it's definition and usage in Romans 5, nothing will.


That explains a lot as to why you believe what you do. This is nothing new. This has been debated long before Pelagius and still is to this day. Most that believe as I do do not belong to a denomination.


Would you like 50 other exampls? I'll make the time to post them if you are willing to read them.

yes please show me 50 examples of God-haters with willing spirits in relation to salvation.

as i said before, if you dont agree with a change and passing of nature to adams posterity that is fine with me. however, your interpretation doesnt change anything. however we were "constituted, or ordained, or set to be, or caused to stand "as sinners, it doesnt change the fact that all under adamre sinners. wether it is their own sinful condition of being born without God, or wether it is imputed sin, it doesnt change the fact that all are born sinners? i really dont see where you are going with this. if we are all sinners because we are born without God solely, we are still all born sinners.


and the greek word for made DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN EVENTUALLY OVER TIME MADE. if someone is appointed to something they can indeed be immediatley appointed. let me show you using some of your own examples:

Acts 6:3
Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

once these men are apopinted they are appointed. they are not "appointed eventually overtime" once they are apopinted they will immediately be appointed.

Hebrews 2:7

Thou madest him a little lower than the angels." man was not eventually overtime made to be lower than the angels. he was always made that way. there was never a point were adam was above angels. once God made Him He made him. he did not become lower than the angels overtime. God didnt make him and then eventually he became what God made him.


as i said before your interpretation of made in romans 5:19 does not change anything. as far as inherited sinful nature, i have already said i am fine if you disagree with that, even various reformed scholars do. but the fact remains that the result of Adams sin is that all who are not under christ are sinners one way or another. thus we are all born sinners

if you would be so kind to post the 50 verses about willing spirits of unsaved hostile-minded unbelievers in relation to salvation. perhaps ive overlooked them?

there is indeed a distinction between adams sin and others. notice eve sinned first. she knew what God had commanded. yet sin and death ENTERED through Adam. His sin was different and had different implications. the results of eves eyes being opened did not happen until Adam sinned. also, lets say we are born with a clean slate. how long is it until we sin? even one sin is deserving of everlasting hellfire, wether it is concious or not. what age do people become slaves to sin? 2, 3, 4? does it make a difference? it doesnt change the fact that the Bible tells us believers that before God made us alive we were by nature objects of Gods wrath. everything apart from faith is sin. sounds harsh, but thats what the Bible says

yes please show me 50 examples of God-haters with willing spirits in relation to salvation. in relation to salvation? What does that mean? What and when is salvation? When Jesus said “spirit is willing” to the disciples they were completely clean by faith, but they weren’t born again. So do you mean ‘salvation’ as in ‘born again’?
Mary wasn’t born again when she said “my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior”.
Job wasn’t born again when he said “there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding”.
Solomon wasn’t born again when he said “The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly”.

Were they saved according to your definition? I’m not sure what you mean by “in relation to salvation”.
In your earlier post you said “everyday non-Christians and enemies of God”. Romans 5:8-10 places ALL in the categories of “enemies” and “sinners” because the blood of Christ had not reconciled us to God.
Along with “everyday non-Christians and enemies of God” you also said “God-haters” and “stony hearts” but what do you mean by these and what scripture are you attempting to use? Ex 20:5, Ro 1:30? Do you mean friends of the world are enmity with God? If your premise isn’t Biblical I can’t be expected nor should I be asked to post scripture against it. In other words I can post 50 examples for those that are not ‘born again’…….(here’s one)

Exo 35:21 And they came, every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing, and they brought the LORD's offering to the work of the tabernacle of the congregation, and for all his service, and for the holy garments.

….but I can’t post 50 examples for those that hate God (Ex 20:5, Ro 1:30).



as i said before, if you dont agree with a change and passing of nature to adams posterity that is fine with me. however, your interpretation doesnt change anything. however we were "constituted, or ordained, or set to be, or caused to stand "as sinners, it doesnt change the fact that all under adamre sinners. wether it is their own sinful condition of being born without God, or wether it is imputed sin, it doesnt change the fact that all are born sinners? i really dont see where you are going with this. if we are all sinners because we are born without God solely, we are still all born sinners. What I say concerning Romans 5:19 and what you say are like night and day. It changes everything! You saying that Adam’s nature changed when he sinned, without any scripture, and that change is passed to his descendants, and me saying mans relationship with God changed leaving man helpless and sin certain, with much scripture, are two completely different points from two completely different sources and origins to two different ends, one with support and one without. We are not born in a full of sin condition being born without God because we have not sinned, but you say we are born full of sin, Adam’s sin. No scripture says we are born sinners.

Your view says all men are made in constitution and nature sinners at birth, but not all are made righteous. You want to say....
-as by one Adam so by one Jesus
but are not willing to consistently apply your definition of the word 'made' to both groups. Your view is not consistent along with the passage.
My view is. Both in Adam and in Jesus man can immediately act according to his position. He can sin without God and can be righteous with God.



and the greek word for made DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN EVENTUALLY OVER TIME MADE. if someone is appointed to something they can indeed be immediatley appointed. let me show you using some of your own examples:

Acts 6:3
Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

once these men are apopinted they are appointed. they are not "appointed eventually overtime" once they are apopinted they will immediately be appointed.

Hebrews 2:7

Thou madest him a little lower than the angels." man was not eventually overtime made to be lower than the angels. he was always made that way. there was never a point were adam was above angels. once God made Him He made him. he did not become lower than the angels overtime. God didnt make him and then eventually he became what God made him. Why are you having to post two different verses using two different Greek words to prove your point? Acts 6:3’s “appoint” is the same as Romans 5:19’s “made” but ‘made’ Hebrews 2:7 is not. The word in Hebrews 2:7 that is the same in the Greek as Romans 5:19 “made” is “set” (see blow). The two words for ‘made’ are not related in any way, except in English translation which I suggested you stop using as your only means of interpretation.

Concerning Acts 6:3 you are correct. That is how the word is used. They are appointed and can, from that point on, act according to their appointment. Same in other instances.

Mans position (set) is over the works of God’s hands.
Heb 2:7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honor, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

Luk 12:14 And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?

Act 7:10 And delivered him out of all his afflictions, and gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt; and he made him governor over Egypt and all his house.

Act 7:35 This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.

Mat 24:47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.

Mat 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

Heb 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:

Heb 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

Heb 7:28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated forevermore.

Tit 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

Now properly read.....
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Many were ordained and set to be sinners. From birth, man can act according to his position. This position has nothing to do with his nature. The position of all those in the examples above didn’t effect their nature. The designation itself does not change the nature immediately, but the designation can over time change the nature. One that is made judge can over time become a power hungry corrupt sinner, right? Did the ordination alone do that immediately or did the man contribute? Of course the man contributed, in fact without the lusts and desires of the man acting without fear and love of God was the deciding factor in acting as a power hungry corrupt judge, was it not?

Man is ordained, set, a sinner because of Adam. So why can man act as a sinner from birth? Since Romans 5:19 cannot be used to say we were made in our very constitution sinners because of a change in nature, something else had to have changed. That something is obviously ‘Relationship’. Holistically, scripture is very clear on our lack of relationship and need of reconciliation, is it not?


it doesnt change the fact that the Bible tells us believers that before God made us alive we were by nature objects of Gods wrath. everything apart from faith is sin. sounds harsh, but thats what the Bible says Doesn’t sound harsh at all. I completely agree!